"The answer to 1984 is 1776"
My Evolving Belief System & Profile
"Habeas Corpus And America Suffer Defeat"
Senate refuses to expand detainee rights
Leahy to continue effort to get enemy combatants habeas corpus rights
 Jacquelyn Martin / AP file | The proposal by Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., to give Guantanamo detainees the right to challenge their detention failed to obtain enough votes to end debate. |
WASHINGTON - The Senate narrowly rejected legislation on Wednesday that would have given military detainees the right to protest their detention in federal court.
The 56-43 vote against the bill, by Sens. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., and Arlen Specter, R-Pa., fell four votes shy of the 60 needed to cut off debate. It was a blow for human rights groups that say a current ban on habeas corpus petitions could lead to the indefinite detention of individuals wrongfully suspected of terrorism.
President Bush and conservative Republicans counter that the ban, enacted last year, was necessary to stem the tide of legal protests flooding civilian courts.
Leahy said he would try again to repeal it, although he was not sure when he would get another chance.
"The truth is that casting aside the time-honored protection of habeas corpus makes us more vulnerable as a nation because it leads us away from our core American values," Leahy said. "It calls into question our historic roll as a defender of human rights around the world."
In 2006, Congress passed and Bush signed into law the Military Commissions Act, which established a military-run tribunal system for prosecuting enemy combatants. The provision barring habeas corpus petitions means that only detainees selected for trial are able to confront charges against them, leaving most military detainees in custody without a chance to plead their case.
Sen. Lindsay Graham, R-S.C., one of the architects of the law, said the system includes checks and balances to determine whether a person is being held unlawfully. Granting a ban on habeas corpus petitions would allow terrorism suspects to go "judge shopping" around U.S. courts to find a sympathetic ear, he said.
Added Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz.: "Never has such an unprecedented legal right been granted to a prisoner of war or detainee."
In June, the Supreme Court agreed to consider whether the ban on habeas corpus petitions is constitutional, although no argument date has been set.
Specter, the lone Republican to cosponsor the bill, has said he anticipates the court will rule the ban unconstitutional.
Habeas corpus "is a constitutional right that has existed since the Magna Carta in 1215," he said.
URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20871093/
Habeas corpus
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In common law countries, habeas corpus(/ˈheɪbiəs ˈkɔɹpəs/) (Latin: [We command that] you have the body) is the name of a legal action, or writ, through which a person can seek relief from unlawful detention of themselves or another person. The writ of habeas corpus has historically been an important instrument for the safeguarding of individual freedom against arbitrary state action.
Also known as "The Great Writ," a writ of habeas corpus ad subjiciendum is a court order addressed to a prison official (or other custodian) ordering that a prisoner be brought before the court so that the court can determine whether that person is serving a lawful sentence or should be released from custody. The prisoner, or some other person on his behalf (for example, where the prisoner is being held incommunicado), may petition the court or an individual judge for a writ of habeas corpus.
The right of habeas corpus—or rather, the right to petition for the writ—has long been celebrated as the most efficient safeguard of the liberty of the subject. Albert Venn Dicey wrote that the Habeas Corpus Acts "declare no principle and define no rights, but they are for practical purposes worth a hundred constitutional articles guaranteeing individual liberty." In most countries, however, the procedure of habeas corpus can be suspended in time of national emergency. In most civil law jurisdictions, comparable provisions exist, but they may not be called "habeas corpus."[1]
The writ of habeas corpus is one of what are called the "extraordinary", "common law", or "prerogative writs", which were historically issued by the courts in the name of the monarch to control inferior courts and public authorities within the kingdom. The most common of the other such prerogative writs are quo warranto, prohibito, mandamus, procedendo, and certiorari.[2]
The due process for such petitions is not simply civil or criminal, because they incorporate the presumption of nonauthority,[3] so that the official who is the respondent has the burden to prove his authority to do or not do something, failing which the court has no discretion but to decide for the petitioner, who may be any person, not just an interested party. In this they differ from a motion in a civil process in which the burden of proof is on the movant, and in which there can be an issue of standing.
Military tribunal
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A military tribunal is a kind of military court designed to try members of enemy forces during wartime, operating outside the scope of conventional criminal and civil matters. The judges are military officers and fulfill the role of jurors. It is distinct from the court martial.
A military tribunal is an inquisitorial system based on charges brought by a military authority, prosecuted by a military authority, judged by military officers, and sentenced by military officers against a member of an adversarial force.
The United States has, infrequently, made use of military tribunals or commissions, rather than rely on a court martial, within the military justice system. General George Washington used military tribunals during the American Revolution.
President Abraham Lincoln used military tribunals during the American Civil War. Their use in cases of civilians was often controversial, and critics of the administration charged that tribunals had become a political weapon, for which the accused had no legal recourse, except through an appeal to the President. The most prominent civilians tried in this way were Democratic politicians Clement L. Vallandigham, Lambdin P. Milligan, and Benjamin Gwynn Harris. All were convicted, and Harris was expelled from the Congress as a result. The so-called Lincoln conspirators were also tried by military commission in the spring and summer of 1865.[1]
Military tribunals were used to try Native Americans who fought the United States during the Indian Wars; the thirty-eight people who were executed after the Dakota War of 1862 were sentenced by a military tribunal.
The U. S. Supreme Court took up the Milligan case in 1866, and in a unanimous opinion, ruled that civilians could not be tried by military commissions in any jurisdiction where the civil courts were functioning.
President Franklin D. Roosevelt ordered military tribunals for eight German prisoners accused of planning sabotage in the United States as part of Operation Pastorius. Roosevelt's decision was challenged, but upheld, in Ex parte Quirin. All eight of the accused were convicted and sentenced to death. Six were executed by electric chair at the District of Columbia jail on August 8, 1942. Two who had given evidence against the others had their sentences reduced by Roosevelt to prison terms. In 1948, they were released and deported to the American Zone of occupied Germany.
International war crimes tribunals were convened by allied forces in both Germany and Japan to try military leaders for war crimes in those cases.
Most recently, as discussed below, the administration of George W. Bush has sought to use military tribunals to try terrorism suspects, mostly individuals captured abroad and held at a prison camp at a military base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
Military Commissions Act of 2006
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The United States Military Commissions Act of 2006, Pub. L. No. 109-366, 120 Stat. 2600 (Oct. 17, 2006), enacting Chapter 47A of title 10 of the United States Code, is an Act of Congress (Senate Bill 3930[1]) signed by President George W. Bush on October 17, 2006. Drafted in the wake of the Supreme Court's decision on Hamdan v. Rumsfeld[2], the Act's stated purpose is to "facilitate bringing to justice terrorists and other unlawful enemy combatants through full and fair trials by military commissions, and for other purposes."[3] The bill eliminates Habeas Corpus and bipartisan critics contend that it is unconstitutional. This law has been used to detain "enemy combatants" indefinitely in a military prison without access to a lawyer.
Please view the above Keith Olbermann video about the Bush Administration's suspension of habeas corpus, the cornerstone of American ideals. Kudos to Senator Patrick Leahy and Arlen Spector and the other Senators who stood up for our American ideals in opposition to the neo- totalitarian Bush Administration. Senators don't give up the fight for habeas corpus and the American way!
Current News & Views Search
Pursuit Of Happiness Media Gutter
